DistantNews
Support us
🇬🇧 United Kingdom /Crime & Justice

Supreme Court Grants Trump Power to Fire Agency Chiefs, Overturning 90-Year Precedent

From The Guardian · () English

Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources Outcome reported
  • The US Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump the power to fire leaders of independent agencies, overturning a 90-year-old precedent.
  • The ruling stems from Trump's firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and is seen as a significant expansion of executive power.
  • Critics, including labor advocates and legal experts, warn of long-term negative impacts on government functioning and democracy.

The US Supreme Court has significantly expanded presidential power, ruling that future presidents, including Donald Trump, can fire leaders of independent agencies. This decision overturns nearly a century of legal precedent established in Humphrey's Executor (1935), which had protected agency officials from arbitrary removal by the executive branch.

There’s no sugar-coating Slaughter. It’s an enormously important ruling (far more important than the other three decisions handed down today). It’s a huge win for Trump/the executive. And it’s going to have massive ramifications for the functioning of the government long after Trump is gone.

— Stephen VladeckA Georgetown Law professor commenting on the significance and long-term impact of the Supreme Court's decision.

The case, Trump v. Slaughter, originated from Trump's dismissal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Slaughter stated she was fired "because I have a voice. And he [Trump] is afraid of what I’ll tell the American people." Trump had previously removed several other agency leaders during his term, often without stated cause beyond inconsistency with his administration's priorities.

I was fired because I have a voice. And he [Trump] is afraid of what I’ll tell the American people.

— Rebecca SlaughterThe FTC Commissioner explaining her perspective on why she believes she was fired by President Trump.

While Trump hailed the decision as a "big win," critics expressed alarm. Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck described the ruling as "enormously important" with "massive ramifications for the functioning of the government long after Trump is gone." Labor advocates, unions, and consumer groups warned that the decision could undermine democratic institutions by allowing for greater political interference in agencies designed to be independent.

As Justice Sotomayor recognized in dissent, today’s decision abandons nearly a century of settled constitutional understanding and replaces it with a loyalty test.

— Gary DiBiancoCo-founder of Lawyers for Good Government, referencing Justice Sotomayor's dissent and criticizing the ruling's shift in constitutional interpretation.

Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, argued that the ruling abandons established constitutional understanding and replaces it with a "loyalty test." Progressive judicial advocacy group Alliance for Justice stated the decision hands the president more control, potentially leading to increased authoritarianism and disastrous long-term consequences for preventing corruption and unfair interference.

In short, our authoritarian president was just handed the keys to be even more authoritarian, and the long-term consequences will no doubt be disastrous.

— Rachel RossiPresident of Alliance for Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy group, expressing strong criticism of the ruling's implications for presidential power.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by The Guardian in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog